Science without Cosmology

Good day,

I have been and will continue to speak out against the Big Bang Theory because of the followers of this belief have forgotten the views it was contrasting and have made into a religion instead of it's intended purposes for which it is now outmoded and being a theory of mankind it is disposable and should be as soon as possible.  Oh and it has been possible for sometime now.  Most of the theories have already been demonstrated to not need the Big Bang Theory to be substantiated and those that do are week and distracting from the pursuit of real science.  The other reasoning to abandon the Big Bang Theory is that it has deteriorated into philosophic destructive immoral drivel.

Although Monsignor George Lemaitre tried to keep his faith and science apart and I am not one to know an others mind I am certain from my own experience that spirit mind and body are connected and that true convictions of God shape a persons perception of the world around them and how they speak and write about it. Yes I admit that I am much more forward about the God reality of the natural world and the scientific pursuit of understanding it.  I do believe that no cosmology is needed to justify any science and God certainly does not need science to exist!

It is truly a sad state of affairs that those who profess to be atheist can not come up with anything scientific that is not steeped in Judaic-Christian belief can continue to maintain that they do not believe in any sort of divinity.  One of the main conceptions that I find flawed in the conception of the Big Bang Theory is the belief in a single point beginning.  If there is no origin of the initial beginning then the beginning is arbitrary.  This sort of logic is one of the very fundamentals of most mathematical proofs.  If for quantities "x" and for quantities "x=1" then... however it is a presumption that there is a finite quantity of matter, therefore x cannot go to infinity and an end point has to be defined.  Lets say that "X" equals the highest quantity of "x+ N" were N=X-x.   That the primeval atom is "A" and regardless of any theories after Lemaitre's 1927 hypothesis A=X. and even now their is no actual singular empirical representation of this transition by Big Bang Theorist to any exclusive decisiveness.

This was one of the many concepts that I had explored in 1982 when I was in high school.  The most basic of the widely accepted formulas that I have no need to dispute is Planck's simple relationship of the energy of a photon (e) to the photon's frequency (f) by using Planck's constant (h). e=hf.  Einstein's relationship between energy (E) and the mass of matter (M) in relationship to the speed of light (c). E=Mcc.  Then the hypothesis that the amount of mass can be totaled and when combined with the total energy of the Universe outside of  the mass and matter can rectified as mass this can be considered to be, by definition, X.  E=Xcc.  Then if A is actually a photon then the frequency of this photon can be solved for.  e=Xcc.  Therefore this frequency (f of A) = (Xcc)/h.  A simple solution for the wavelength (w) comes from fw=c, w=c/f.  w=h/Xc.  Therefore regardless of whether there is or is not a Big Bang or a primeval particle the smallest subdivision of a photon is w.  If and only if h and c are constants and c is the greatest velocity that can be achieved. 

Since our observations are limited to light (of various frequencies) then even if there are particles that might move faster than the speed of light we won't be able to obverse them as such and until a manner of observation can substantiate particles (or waves or whatever it might turn out to be) moving faster than the speed of light w should hold as a smallest unit of measure.  Weather or not w is a singular unit (or what some might refer to as a quanta measurement) I have not tried to verify.  What I was interested in at the time was the idea if something traveled faster than the speed of light then it would have to be smaller than the particle component of w.  If such a particle existed  and maintained a 'wave packet' profile then it prove that there could not be a primeval particle (although the Big Bang theorist would probably increase the amount of Matter/Mass in the Universe to appease this or exclaim they left out a certain amount of energy out of their claim

It really is an interesting idea of working out the total mass and total energy of the Universe and some have claimed to have done this.  However as far as a real scientific quantity the verifiability of such claims is of course impossible.  An other little wrinkle of this is an other strike against the idea of a black hole.  This idea is not contained by the presupposition that the Big Bang Theory' primeval particle displays waves particles.  Which would mean that it has no rotation and no properties that would lend any aspects of ever being part of a harmonic system i.e. it does not vibrate nor does it have the capacity to do so.  Truly, other wise it would traveling and if it is the only thing of the Universe, the beginning, then where is it going.  By the actual definition that is, if these limitations seem preposterous then the Big Bang Theory is not about the particle, the particle is sequential.  It is the nature of Space it's self.  But as soon as you step into Space it all becomes subjected to Relativity and then the Big Bang Theory is stuck in the Steady Space Theory that it has supposedly superseded.  So the Big Bang Theories primeval particle has to be a photon, the highest possible energy photon.  If all the mass and energy of the Universe can be suspended in a single photon then if matter is being pulled together before it can reach a critical mass to form form a black hole, it actually is reformed into high energy photons.  This formation we see all the time not only is the specific case of our sun Sol, but through out the observational journals of astronomy through out all the recorded time we have gathered. 

Now if this is a photon, then it has to be traveling, but where is it going and where has it come from.  Again it is no longer about the particle but about Space.  Therefore there is no scientific presidency for a Big Bang Theory of any type.  It doesn't mean that people can't have a Big Bang Theology but there is nothing left for Science in the Big Bang Theory.  True Science has suffered the demands of the Big Bang Theology long enough!  Lets talk about Space!

It is true that my ideas do come from scripture, but it is not that I am trying to validate my belief, I believe that there are some many different things outside of these realms of science that confirms my faith, and that is what it is my own, and anyone else's opinion is only their opinion of their own faith.  These things of faith are themselves singularly one's own.  What I do know is that my meditations on the first chapter of the First Book of Moses, Genesis, have led me to seeing far beyond the very limiting concepts and constrictions of the Big Bang Theory.  If people want to believe in the Big Bang Cosmology that is their own choose, everyone is free to choose their own religion and theology regardless of the United Nations stance on such reality.  I am a naturally born United States of America citizen and such things are self evident.  When I speak of how I have come across these ideas is to encourage those to come to allow a higher wisdom to govern their thoughts because mankind is limited and subjective. I badger those who hold onto the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution as pointedly as possible because they have imposed a strangle hold on the World Scientific Community and have kept the best of science from helping the multitude.

Scripture can not confirm any idea of physics.  It is not the nature of the texts.  However it is intended to teach ethics and morality and scientists around the world will always have need to know how to use the amount of virtue they have been given for the greater good more so than others.  More so is ethics and morality for the scientists because they have been given a great responsibility.  They are the teachers of teachers and have been charged with tasks that people and even themselves may not understand why they have to be done.  Often they themselves do not have the resources to carry out their research and maybe able to find these resources offered by others.  What are these terms of these others?  Are they also scientists?  Are they capable of granting the liberty the scientist needs to be wrong?  Or is the scientists to set aside their own ideas to pursue an others?  These are only the slightest important realities that all scientists need a strong foundation in ethics and morality.  Sometimes a scientist might have delved so deep into their field that even their peers are uncertain about what is being discussed.

Peace,

Stephen